- 17 -
the corporate sale of land could have resulted in financial gain
or income to her husband.3 Like the taxpayer in Charlton v.
Commissioner, supra, petitioner possessed only a part of the
information, and the information that she did possess was
insufficient to supply her with actual knowledge regarding the
amount of the financial gain from the transaction, if any. In
sum and in substance, petitioner knew only that Mr. Martin had
transferred his stock in Primera and land was sold. Without
knowledge of additional and complex facts, petitioner would not
be in a position to actually know the amount of the financial
gain from the transaction, if any.
We have difficulty discerning any meaningful differences
between the taxpayer in Charlton v. Commissioner, supra, who knew
of the income source and did not verify the total amount
reportable, and petitioner, who knew that her husband transferred
stock and sold land, but had no knowledge of the amount of the
financial gain, if any, or of most of the facts that gave rise to
that gain. Unlike the taxpayer in Cheshire v. Commissioner,
supra, respondent has not shown that, at the time she signed the
return, petitioner had actual knowledge of items underlying the
possibility of any financial gain.
3 Neither party disputes that any gain arising from the
stock transfer and land sale would have been reported solely by
petitioner’s husband had petitioner and her husband filed
separate tax returns.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011